Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

For more than a decade, Serosorting has broken the cycle of new HIV transmissions, has made safe sex safer, and has reunited mankind to achieve a single, common goal – to reignite the excitement of HIV Prevention.

NOTE: There are three forms of Serosorting and TWO involve safe sex; so WHY are HIV researchers in the USA delibertaly censoring this vital scientific data? Also; please note: The Safe Sex Serosorting data involves STRAIGHT (Male / Female) couples - So WHY the discrimination against HIV+ gay men? And WHY do the HIV researchers in the USA claim that Serosorting is only for BAREBACKING GAY MEN? Do HIV+ gay men have safe sex with other HIV+ gay men? Do HIV-negative gay men have safe sex with other HIV-negative gay men?

Acording to the HIV Serosorting researchers in the USA, NO, HIV+ gay men do NOT have safe sex, and neither do HIV-negative gay men. It's a sad nation we live in, when vital HIV prevention and harm reduction data is censored from us.

The Safe Sex Serosorting data:

“Does serosorting work? In some American cities, evidence of a “disconnect” between rising rates of sexually transmitted infections but steady or declining rates of HIV incidence has been seen as evidence that serosorting is working. Two things are necessary for serosorting:

1) A high rate of HIV testing and,2) Disclosure of status.

A number of different posters looked at rates of disclosure by HIV-positive people all over the world. A poster from Uganda (King) found that of 1,092 HIV-positive clients of the country’s largest AIDS NGO, TASO, 45% of them men, 42% of them had been sexually active in the past three months and of these 69% had disclosed their HIV status to their partner. Encouragingly, higher rates of disclosure were associated with higher rates of condom use, showing that the two activities are linked.

Finally, in an upbeat presentation, Fiona Percy-de Korte reported on high rates of disclosure among recipients of antiretrovirals in the Botswana National Treatment Programme.

Among this cross-sectional survey of 275 patients in two districts, she said that 90% of ARV recipients had disclosed their HIV status to family members, 71% to their spouse or partner, 54% to friends, 26% to a church leader, and 20% to their employer.

Seventy-three per cent said they always used a condom during sex. And 48% said they had reduced their number of sexual partners since diagnosis.”(1)

There is plenty of evidence that serosorting exists as a behaviour. Jonathan Elford presented a poster showing that serosorting was common not only among HIV-positive gay men in the UK but also among Africans.”(2)

“Investigators from Sydney therefore looked at the serosorting behaviour of gay men known to be HIV-negative between 2002 and 2005. Although these men were not explicitly asked if they had “serosorted,” this behaviour was inferred from information they provided.

The practice of deliberately selecting partners of the same HIV status – often called “serosorting” – has been well described amongst HIV-positive gay men and even been credited with contributing to a fall in HIV incidence in San Francisco. Most investigators have looked at the serosorting behaviours of HIV-positive men and there are limited data on serosorting amongst HIV-negative gay men. There is also some evidence from the United States that HIV-negative men are increasingly avoiding sex with men who know they are HIV-positive. They also suggest that the internet may have a role in the apparent increase in serosorting.” (3)

(1) Percy-de Korte F. Experiences of people living with AIDS (PLWA) following enrollment in the Botswana National Treatment Programme (BNTP). Sixteenth International AIDS Conference, Toronto, abstract WEAC0102, 2006.

HIV+ since late 1983 (And yes, I DO remember the witch hunts, the hate, the finger pointing, the lies, the deaths, the public out cries to stop HIV, the banishments, the suicides, the attacks...should I go on?)

Currently living in New York City, NY (12 years now)

Take meds, but only when I want to, NOT when my dr. tells me to. Which allows me to state as a fact: HIV does NOT control me, I control me, and HIV does NOT mutate...otherwise I would be dead by now. Which allows me to QUESTION the so called HIV "experts" and "perfessionals". Lets just say - that for the past decade, I have stepped OUT of Plato's Cave and learned to explore the world with MY OWN thoughts and ideas, and WITHOUT the financial or political support of the HIV agencies, organizations, departments, "experts" or "perfessionals".

And the ONLY reason WHY HIV is still here today is because of: Negligence, Censorship, Discrimination and Accounting Fraud. If NOT, then someone please explain WHY scientific Safe Sex Serosorting research data is being censored here in the US. WHY PERMOTE safe sex and HIV testing when NO ONE cares to conduct the required research to monitor it's success?

However, I am pleased about the Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut work in Serosorting (Note: this is the ONLY research study about the Psychology of Serosorting). Any other researchers wish to join on the band wagon?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the current study was to assess whether men who have sex with men (MSM) who limit their unprotected anal sexual partners to those who are of the same HIV status (serosort) differ in their risk for HIV transmission than MSM who do not serosort. METHODS: Cross-sectional surveys administered at a large Gay Pride festival in June 2006 (80% response rate) were collected from MSM. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used to identify predictors of serosorting. Analyses were conducted in 2006. RESULTS: Participants were self-identified as HIV-negative MSM (N=628); about one third of them engaged in serosorting (n=229). Men who serosort were more likely to believe that it offered protection against HIV transmission, perceived themselves as being at no relatively higher risk for HIV transmission, and had more unprotected anal intercourse partners. Over half the sample reported their frequency of HIV testing as yearly or less frequently; this finding did not differ between serosorters and nonserosorters. CONCLUSIONS: Men who identify as HIV-negative and serosort are no more likely to know their HIV status than men who do not serosort and are at higher risk for exposure to HIV. Interventions targeting MSM must address the limitations of serosorting.

Take meds, but only when I want to, NOT when my dr. tells me to. Which allows me to state as a fact: HIV does NOT control me, I control me, and HIV does NOT mutate...otherwise I would be dead by now. Which allows me to QUESTION the so called HIV "experts" and "perfessionals". Lets just say - that for the past decade, I have stepped OUT of Plato's Cave and learned to explore the world with MY OWN thoughts and ideas, and WITHOUT the financial or political support of the HIV agencies, organizations, departments, "experts" or "perfessionals".

And the ONLY reason WHY HIV is still here today is because of: Negligence, Censorship, Discrimination and Accounting Fraud. If NOT, then someone please explain WHY scientific Safe Sex Serosorting research data is being censored here in the US. WHY PERMOTE safe sex and HIV testing when NO ONE cares to conduct the required research to monitor it's success?

and we have another one.

Free Thinker, I'd love to give you a more effusive welcome, but frankly I can't.

The peer reviewed science demonstrates without a shadow of a doubt that HIV does mutate, and those mutations are to it's advantage and, generally speaking, our disadvantage.

The fact that you're still alive doesn't really prove anything other than that, well, you're still alive.

So, just because I live my live MY way, YOU find cause to judge me? LOL

Lets stay on topic, shall we?

Scientific Safe Sex Serosorting research data is delibertaly being censored in the US, AND gay HIV+ men are being discriminated against as a result. Matty.the.damned, do you care about this or are you more concerned about me not taking my meds?

Why fund HIV prevention and harm reduction programs if we allow vital HIV research data to be censored?

When you say things that are just plain wrong, you're damn right I'll judge you. What's more I'll point out that you're wrong. You made a claim about HIV and mutation which is totally wrong and I've addressed that.

Therefore my post was entirely on topic.

I couldn't give a shit whether you take medications or not. If you want to die a horrible AIDS related death, you're completely free to do so. I won't lose any sleep over you either way.

With reference to your belief regarding data being censored, I submit that you have to provide evidence of that. Credible evidence, not tin-foil hat wearing loony stuff from some bizarro website. Frankly your claims thus fair reek of conspiracy theories and flat out woo.

There are more than 6 billion people on the planet and ALL have opinions, and belive it or not - ALL those opinions are CORRECT. Why? Because those people belive that their opinion is correct and will defend the opinion or viewpoint. The problem then arises where mankind chooses sides, and forms subgroups of general opinions, and this is the major cause of arguments, fights and war - when the subgroups clash.

The topic is "Research" and the "Sub Topic" is Safe Sex Serosorting or the lack of it. So here's a question to start the ball rolling:

* HIV+ and HIV-negative people (gay, bisexual, straight) have safe sex with their own HIV status. Therefore, WHY are the HIV researchers, agencies, organizations, "experts" and "professionals" delibertaly refusing to acknowlege this simple fact?

BONUS QUESTIONS:

* Do people have safe sex anymore?* Why continue funding the HIV agencies, organizations, "experts" and "professionals" when it is very clear that they do NOT defend HIV testing and safe sex - the foundation of Serosorting?

Remember this, Ladies and Gentlemen, Socrates did NOT need to drink the hemlock. But, he did so anyway. Therefore, we CAN stop the spread of NEW HIV transmissions - BUT only IF we want to. Serosorting breaks the cycle of NEW HIV transmissions and makes safe sex safer.

There are more than 6 billion people on the planet and ALL have opinions, and belive it or not - ALL those opinions are CORRECT. Why? Because those people belive that their opinion is correct and will defend the opinion or viewpoint. The problem then arises where mankind chooses sides, and forms subgroups of general opinions, and this is the major cause of arguments, fights and war - when the subgroups clash.

So If I am of the opinion that I have a couple billion in my bank account, it's correct?

The hiv virus DOES mutate. It's a fact proven by science - it's not a matter of opinion. Ask anyone who has developed drug resistance.

Serosorting is all very fine and good - when it's poz on poz. When you're talking neg on neg, things get a little murky. Too many people only ASSUME they're negative, for a start. And let's not forget about the window period when testing. Perhaps this is why you are coming up against what, in your opinion, is censorship. By promoting your "hiv-UB2" ideas, what you're really promoting is barebacking among people who are of the opinion that they are hiv negative. And no, opinions are not always facts, as I've already pointed out to you. You're playing with fire and people's lives.

After all, for most people the whole point of serosorting is to be able to bareback.

There is no point in serosorting when condoms are used correctly and consistently. Condoms prevent hiv infection. The only time neg on neg serosorting makes much sense is in terms of a committed, monogamous relationship where both partners have tested negative (at the appropriate time in relation to the window period) before any barebacking occurs.

It's far better to plow resources into getting people to test regularly and USE CONDOMS. Serosorting isn't the answer. The only way neg on neg serosorting would be of any use is if they come up with a test that will show an infection within hours of it happening. And that ain't gonna happen.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Are you all saying that HIV testing should be banned because it is providing false and missleading results, and that condom use is worthless?

Again,WHY continue funding HIV programs that refuse to support the community?

You are all saying the same thing: HIV / AIDS must be stopped. HOWEVER, you are all refusing to "Break the cycle" of new HIV transmissions. As for the Safe Sex Serosorting research data that is highly successful: Here it is again (because you missed it the frist time)

The Safe Sex Serosorting data:

“Does serosorting work? In some American cities, evidence of a “disconnect” between rising rates of sexually transmitted infections but steady or declining rates of HIV incidence has been seen as evidence that serosorting is working. Two things are necessary for serosorting:

1) A high rate of HIV testing and,2) Disclosure of status.

A number of different posters looked at rates of disclosure by HIV-positive people all over the world. A poster from Uganda (King) found that of 1,092 HIV-positive clients of the country’s largest AIDS NGO, TASO, 45% of them men, 42% of them had been sexually active in the past three months and of these 69% had disclosed their HIV status to their partner. Encouragingly, higher rates of disclosure were associated with higher rates of condom use, showing that the two activities are linked.

Finally, in an upbeat presentation, Fiona Percy-de Korte reported on high rates of disclosure among recipients of antiretrovirals in the Botswana National Treatment Programme.

Among this cross-sectional survey of 275 patients in two districts, she said that 90% of ARV recipients had disclosed their HIV status to family members, 71% to their spouse or partner, 54% to friends, 26% to a church leader, and 20% to their employer.

Seventy-three per cent said they always used a condom during sex. And 48% said they had reduced their number of sexual partners since diagnosis.”(1)

There is plenty of evidence that serosorting exists as a behaviour. Jonathan Elford presented a poster showing that serosorting was common not only among HIV-positive gay men in the UK but also among Africans.”(2)

“Investigators from Sydney therefore looked at the serosorting behaviour of gay men known to be HIV-negative between 2002 and 2005. Although these men were not explicitly asked if they had “serosorted,” this behaviour was inferred from information they provided.

The practice of deliberately selecting partners of the same HIV status – often called “serosorting” – has been well described amongst HIV-positive gay men and even been credited with contributing to a fall in HIV incidence in San Francisco. Most investigators have looked at the serosorting behaviours of HIV-positive men and there are limited data on serosorting amongst HIV-negative gay men. There is also some evidence from the United States that HIV-negative men are increasingly avoiding sex with men who know they are HIV-positive. They also suggest that the internet may have a role in the apparent increase in serosorting.” (3)

(1) Percy-de Korte F. Experiences of people living with AIDS (PLWA) following enrollment in the Botswana National Treatment Programme (BNTP). Sixteenth International AIDS Conference, Toronto, abstract WEAC0102, 2006.

I guess you all want HIV+ people to have as much sex as possible with as many HIV- people as possible, right? My only concern is that wouldn't THAT INCREASE the HIV-negative person chances of becomming HIV+?

That, is just plain stupid, and irresponsible behavior folks. Why do you condone this?

As one of the admins of this message board, I would have expected a little more respect from you. But, as you pointed out NOT everyone can be of the same opinion.

Therefore Ann, regarding your statement:

"Serosorting is all very fine and good - when it's poz on poz. When you're talking neg on neg, things get a little murky. Too many people only ASSUME they're negative, for a start. And let's not forget about the window period when testing. Perhaps this is why you are coming up against what, in your opinion, is censorship. By promoting your "hiv-UB2" ideas, what you're really promoting is barebacking among people who are of the opinion that they are hiv negative."

1) Please show your supporting evidence that Safe Sex Serosorting in regards to HIV-negative people failed, and...2) Since I am the only one (currently) on this message thread SUPPORTING: HIV-negative people to continue having safe sex AND getting tested for HIV (Safe Sex Serosorting - 101), I would hope you learn some "Online Ettiquette".

As one of the admins of this message board, I would have expected a little more respect from you. But, as you pointed out NOT everyone can be of the same opinion.

Therefore Ann, regarding your statement:

"Serosorting is all very fine and good - when it's poz on poz. When you're talking neg on neg, things get a little murky. Too many people only ASSUME they're negative, for a start. And let's not forget about the window period when testing. Perhaps this is why you are coming up against what, in your opinion, is censorship. By promoting your "hiv-UB2" ideas, what you're really promoting is barebacking among people who are of the opinion that they are hiv negative."

1) Please show your supporting evidence that Safe Sex Serosorting in regards to HIV-negative people failed, and...2) Since I am the only one (currently) on this message thread SUPPORTING: HIV-negative people to continue having safe sex AND getting tested for HIV (Safe Sex Serosorting - 101), I would hope you learn some "Online Ettiquette".

Stay ON topic folks...

Gosh, I'm sounding like a Moderator instead of a Member. Geesh.

I'm not even sure I understand what the topic of this thread is supposed to be even. WUT ? ? ? What the hell are you talking about - (you) "are the only one currently on this thread supporting HIV - people to continue having safe sex AND getting tested for HIV". HUH? Safe sex and getting tested are ALL that gets talked about on here. I'm not sure I'm following your little crack pot conspiracy dealie. I don't see anything incorrect with what Ann wrote previously.

"Serosorting is all very fine and good - when it's poz on poz. When you're talking neg on neg, things get a little murky. Too many people only ASSUME they're negative, for a start."

I totaly suscribe it. We have the certitude we are poz and will be for the rest of our lives, unless a cure appears some day.

But we only have the certitude of being neg just until some weeks before the moment we obtain HIV test results. Future is a clean white paper that will depend on our actitudes from that point on. The problem is that, most of people does not have this perception and they assume a negative result in a test made on the past, or never having done one, as an equivalent to being negative.

and:

"There is no point in serosorting when condoms are used correctly and consistently."

I too suscribe this.

I think serosorting debate is interesting, because it could lead us to some light on why prevention is not working properly anymore (if it did at any time in the past).

I think guiltyness, and the need to give an answer to the pression derived from it, is a big part of the explanation for this serosorting debate that tends, in the end, to the idea of leaving condoms apart.

An example of this is, as Free Thinker says in one of his/her posts, we have the fact that serosorting is publically identified as an issue mainly of poz gay men. All articles and litterature about serosorting always refers to gay HIV men sex or gay sex in general. At the end of the point there is barebacking sex.

Serosorting, thus barebacking is, actually, the mainstream in most heterosexual couples relationships and, of course, in gay "neg-self-assumed" men. But barebacking in hetero couples has never raised such a concern. So, we have, the same fact: barebacking, with the same risky potencial consecuencies (getting HIV or anyother bug) causing different levels of concerns, in some cases, no concern at all, in the public opinion or even in experts' debates, articles and statements. This is very important, beacuse this is already conditionning prevention strategies: funding, ideas being transmitted and awareness achieved.

Back to serosorting among poz people, of course one could feel much more comfortable in many ways having sex with another poz person, beacuse communication in some aspects could be easier and so each one can feel some release, less fear to rejection and all that. (What does not mean at all the certitude of having good sex!!! )But using a condom or doing it safe is still, in my opinion, necessary, due to many other health concerns such as hep C, STDs other than HIV and so on.

The point is, I think, using a condom is much harder than we may thought. Mechanicaly, it is a very simply procedure, but the big knot or bottle neck is in our minds. There are a lot of very complex issues from our mind, education, feelings and self-esteem that matherialize in the decision of whether using it or not.

Good to know that there are others out there with thoughts and ideas on this topic: Safe Sex Serosorting. The problem might be that many fail to understand the topic in the first place... Serosorting in the United States is being defined as a BAREBACKING ONLY method, while in other parts of the world, SAFE SEX SEROSORTING is common and accepted - as my posting above supports this. Therefore, the increase in HIV infections in America is a direct result of this error in definition. The increase in new HIV invections is also a result of the lack of support for HIV-negative people; WHERE are the HIV-negative dating websites, support groups and other social outlets to help empower and encourage HIV-negative people to stay HIV-negative?

Thank you for your input Alberche.

Now for MtD...

Yes, it IS me. Suprised? I thought not. But please, if your are going to post articles about Me, please include my work defending the moral, ethical and LEGAL rights of HIV-negative people to meet other HIV-negative people (FOR dating websites, support groups and other social outlets to help empower and encourage hIV-negative people to stay HIV-negative)

The reason WHY HIV is still here today is because of: Negligence, Censorship, Discrimination AND Accounting Fraud.How MANY of these can be pointed out and identified in this messege thread? Opps, but this entire website is funded by the HIV drug makers and "Their Friends", therefore, I am surely to be BANNNNNED.

No Bobby, I'm not surprised it's you. I'm surprised that you hadn't rocked up here earlier than this, but you're here now so we'll just have to make the best of it.

I should explain some of this for the normal people who read these threads. Your websites are not easier to navigate nor understand.

Robert Brandon Sandor (aka A Free Thinker in these forums) believes that the key to preventing HIV transmission is through a form of sexual segregation. He believes that HIV positive people should only sleep with other positive people and the same should apply to HIV negative people.

His reasoning is that this will somehow stop HIV transmission dead in it's tracks and he cites (incorrectly) a whole lot of "sero-sorting" studies as though they back up his fringe theories.

To further this lofty goal he organises sex orgies and hookups for HIV negative men in New York City, in an effort to promote the sexual apartheid he believes will be the salvation of humanity. He conveniently ignores (or maybe just doesn't understand) the HIV window period or that human sexuality is more complex than some arbitrary binary division based on presumed disease status.

Understandably many reputable websites and organisations refuse to have anything to do with him. He is constantly refused access to forums and mailing lists where he tries to peddle this bizarre "prevention" strategy. When people criticise him or dispute his fundamentally flawed and fallacious arguments he screeches "CENSORSHIP".

But don't take my word for it. Visit Bobby's website. Marvel at his forum. Try to untangle the Gordian Knot of logical fallacies, errors and ad-hominem calumnies he advances as proof of his theories.

Thank you for the comments, very "Knind" of you. But you would be wrong in many ways about me... NOT uncommon though. Here, to correct Matty's misunderstandings about me, here is one of many articles Matty do NOT want you to read:

An HIV activist has gone off on a limb that has alienated him from AIDS researchers, activists and organizations by advocating "self-serosorting" by HIV-positive and--and this is the controversial part--HIV-negative gay men. Even if his methods are unconventional and his rhetoric off-putting to many, he’s raising points that have been discussed for years. Just not in the open--until now.

Some 25 years into the AIDS epidemic, gay men are debating serosorting more than ever before. Part of that is due to an "unstoppable protagonist" as he has been called, Robert Brandon Sandor. Bolstered by reports that suggest serosorting brings either psychological relief or danger to gay men, Sandor has embarked on a crusade to keep "pozzies" and "neggies" out of each other’s bedrooms.

Sandor doesn’t exactly shy away from controversy. He calls HIV-negative men the future and invites them (and only them) to "HIV-UB2" parties via his new site, . HIV-positive men have been vocal in their complaints of "sero-apartheid." Sandor points to a study of gay men in San Francisco that reports serosorting resulted in a reduction of HIV infection among gay men there.

According to reports like that one, serosorting may be effective for positive and negative couples. For positive men, they don’t have to worry about HIV transmission to somebody who is negative, although they still have to worry about other STDs. Serosorting brings psychological relief, for HIV negative men. But, experts say, serosorting cannot obviate the issue of trust as the foundation--and fundamental problem--of any effective serosorting. Why? Because HIV-negative gay men may assume their partners are also negative and STD-free.

"This is the reason why I have decided to start a series of sex parties exclusively for HIV-negative men so that HIV infection among them can be reduced, if not stopped totally, via a safer version of serosorting," Sandor says.

But serosorting does not necessarily protect anyone from HIV or other STDs. "As we all know, it is a very big mistake to trust anyone when it comes to their HIV status as most of them don’t even know their own status," notes one HIV-negative man who is in a long term relationship with an HIV-positive partner in New York City. "Under such circumstances, serosorting becomes an indirect way of spreading the HIV virus among HIV-negative gay men because serosorting seems to say that it is ok to bareback based on a simple foundation: trust,"

While Sandor (who is himself self-declared as HIV-positive) agrees that condoms are still the way to go to reduce HIV infection regardless of who has sex with whom, he believes "serosorting is a trend we all should have considered long time ago to save HIV-negative men who are really our future if we want to reduce or stop HIV infection."

The issue came to a head recently when Sandor applied to New York’s LGBT Center to organize series of activities exclusively for HIV-negative men there. Robert A. Woodworth wrote back via an email rejecting the application without explanation.

Center spokesperson David Henderson told EDGE that fostering health and wellness for LGBT people, including prevention of HIV transmission, has been a core component of the Center’s mission since its founding in 1983. In the realm of HIV/AIDS prevention, serosorting is a controversial subject. As a community concern it warrants discussion. Sandor conducted seminars at the Center in September 2006 and April 2007 on the subject. The Center rejected the application for a social event, Henderson said, "because the Center shares widely held concerns about risks associated with serosorting."

Sandor branded email "hate mail" and made it public. He’s never shied away from controversy.

Poz-on-Poz: How Risky?For a decade, he’s been actively expressing opposition or hostility toward established activists, including Brad Becker of the LGBT National Help Center, Ken Fornataro of The Network, and Dan O’Connell of the NYSDOH-AIDS Institute. None of these leaders have been willing to debate this controversial issue openly in public, Sandor says.

Ten years ago Brandon created a series of social and sexual parties for pozzies in various cities). He says many positive men thanked him for a sex party without any reservations. HIV advocacy groups, however, weren’t so pleased. They questioned whether the participants were all telling the truth about their HIV status. Sandor did ask participants to use condoms.

The success of these parties led him into the uncharted waters of HIV-negative parties. Advocacy groups didn’t think the message was clear enough and that Sandor had failed to note that HIV can be transmitted in other ways than sexually, and that there was the possibility of other nasty (if not fatal) STDs.

Ken Fornataro, executive director of The Network, says he supports people having safe sex with whomever they want (except for minors), but accuses Sandor of advocating safe or unsafe sex between two HIV seronegative gay men, tacitly at least "That’s very unlikely to stop the spread of HIV or anything else, including selfish disrespect for others," Fornataro says.

Sandor maintains that "the general public is not aware of the resources available out there and some gay men don’t even know what serosorting means," despite its possible benefits. Indeed, some experts have praised serosorting as a way to prevent the spread of HIV between partners who choose not to use condoms. But many others won’t endorse any unprotected sex.

The San Francisco study mentioned above may buttress Sandor’s claims. "Serosorting" became a buzzword early in 2006, when the San Francisco Department of Public Health officials and researchers proposed that serosorting might help explain a simultaneous increase in sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and decrease in new HIV infections.

Researchers have suggested that while the increase in STIs indicated either static or increasing rates of unprotected sex, rates of HIV infection were holding steady. So maybe negative guys were doing it with negative guys--giving each other clap maybe, but not HIV.

Nor do all gay men disagree with Brandon. Some HIV-negative men see his intentions as benign. But Sandor doesn’t help his cause by branding anyone who disagrees with him as a "hate group" and calling their motives into question.

"My partner was infected because he trusted his ex-lover, says an HIV-negative man living with a positive man. "Safe sex is still the only way to go especially for us. Serosorting is based on trust and we cannot trust anyone--not even the ones we know personally because most of the people we know do not know their own HIV status and most of them don’t go for a regular check up, because they ’always play it safe."

But experts and activists may not be tackling whether negative people think they are being safe because they think they know the serostatus of their partners and are not using protection. "You probably have also heard of some businesses that offer cards attesting to a person’s negative status, but we think that these are being used by people to convince others that it’s safe to have unprotected sex with them," warns Dan O’Connell, a director of the Division of HIV Prevention at NYSDOH-AIDS Institute.

The person may be unaware of his status even after being checked.

Unaware of Serostatus, Despite TestingThe body naturally produces the standard HIV antibody screening test checks for antibodies against HIV. However, the immune system typically takes one to three months--and in rare cases as long as six months--to develop detectable quantities of antibodies (the hallmark of seroconversion).

As people who have had an HIV test may recall hearing from a doctor or counselor, the antibody test will not detect HIV infection during this "window period." A supposedly HIV negative person who has, in fact, been recently infected with HIV may receive a negative test result but still be capable of transmitting the virus. Indeed, HIV viral load skyrockets during acute infection, as the body has yet to produce enough antibodies to keep the virus (relatively) in check, and researchers believe that newly infected individuals are more infectious during this period than they will be during long-term, chronic infection.

This presents a significant problem for HIV negative people who rely on serosorting in order to have unprotected sex.

A significant proportion of people practicing serosorting who think they are HIV negative or do not truly know their status may, in fact, be HIV positive. In the vast majority of studies in which investigators have asked participants for self-reported HIV status and then conducted follow-up blood screening, those who were unsure of their HIV status overwhelmingly tended to be positive.

Dr. Richard J. Wolitski, acting deputy director for Behavioral and Social Sciences, Division of the National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, believes that serosorting is likely to further reduce the risk of HIV transmission. But only if it is practiced in conjunction with monogamy and condom use, "Serosorting as a substitute for other strategies may be problematic, particularly because studies have suggested that many HIV-infected men who have sex with men are mostly unaware of their infection," Wolitski says.

One recent study also found nearly half of HIV-infected men having sex with men did not know that they were infected. Additionally, a study of more than 4,000 of these men found that 22 percent of new HIV infections were attributed to unprotected receptive anal sex with a partner who was believed to be HIV-negative.

"Consider the facts that roughly 25 percent of people with HIV don’t even know they’re infected," says Tim Horn, senior editor of AIDSmeds.com. "Or that people with acute HIV infection--with very high levels of HIV in their body--are easily missed using antibody testing; or that many don’t get tested for HIV as regularly as they should.

"Essentially, you end up dealing with a sizeable number of men who think they’re negative but really aren’t, and end up putting their partners at risk under the premise of serosorting," Horn says. "It’s definitely a noteworthy extension of safer sex principles, but it hardly comes with guarantees."

Researchers have also begun to observe how HIV positive individuals are choosing specific roles and behaviors with their sexual partners based on serostatus, a practice known as "strategic positioning." For example, some studies report that HIV-positive gay and bisexual men are more likely to take a receptive role with HIV-negative partners during anal sex, as the virus is less likely to be transmitted from the receptive to the insertive partner.

Experts also say serosorting can be an active or passive strategy. For example, an HIV-positive person who seeks a sex partner through online chat rooms or bulletin boards may actively select seropositive partners and/or disclose serostatus in a personal profile, allowing potential partners to serosort and thereby reducing the odds of connecting with individuals who may react unfavorably upon learning that a potential partner has HIV.

Data gathered over the past few years indicate that HIV positive individuals tend to engage in risk-reduction strategies when they have sex with a partner they believed to be HIV negative.

According to Perry Halkitis, director of the Center for Health, Identity, Behavior and Prevention Studies at New York University, "research consistently documents that HIV positive (gay and bisexual) men deliberately partake in less risky transmission behaviors when their partners are known to be HIV negative. In my view, it is indicative of the sense of responsibility many HIV positive men have toward their partners and the gay community at large," he says.

Condoms Still UnpopularWhat are the personal benefits of serosorting?

For many, condoms have significant shortcomings: they can be awkward and cumbersome to use, may dull the physical sensations of sex, often carry cultural stigma, and may create an emotional barrier between partners. Furthermore, 26 years into the HIV/AIDS epidemic, there is a sense of burn-out and fatigue with "use a condom every time" safer-sex messages.

HIV positive men (or anyone) who prefer to have sex without condoms may find that serosorting decreases their anxiety about transmitting HIV, allowing them to enjoy sex more fully, both physically and emotionally. Even for individuals who practice safer sex, serosorting can reduce anxiety about possible condom failure.

"From what I heard and know, serosorting can also be a way for HIV positive people to more readily find partners for a long-term relationship, as some seropositive individuals prefer to date others who understand the experience of living with HIV," says Marc Delany, a sexually active HIV-positive man in New York City who is familiar with the current showdown between Brandon and the HIV advocacy groups.

Chris Heredia, a reporter at San Francisco Chronicle, also thinks that HIV-positive individuals find that serosorting helps to alleviate the discomfort and potential rejection sometimes associated with disclosure, and seeking sexual partners through venues (such as websites) specifically designed for finding HIV positive peers dramatically decreases the likelihood of meeting partners who turn out to be HIV negative.

"However, relying on passive serosorting--providing information that allows potential partners to serosort--puts positive individuals at greater risk for the possible repercussions associated with being open about one’s HIV status, such as loss of medical confidentiality and possible discrimination," Heredia explains.

While it is true that some people find that serosorting reinforces a sense of community and connectedness by helping them to meet others who intimately understand life with HIV, others point out that fostering community through serosorting may widen rifts between positive and negative people. Choosing to develop relationships or have sex exclusively with same-status people may dramatically limit an individual’s pool of prospective partners and social contacts.

As serosorting becomes more commonplace, conversations in which a person discloses his or her HIV status before sex may become the norm. Perhaps individuals unsure of their status will be more likely to seek out HIV testing as peers and partners emphasize the need to know HIV status for certain.

Safe-Sex Campaigns’ Implicit Serosorting MessageSerosorting has implicitly been a major component of prevention strategies over the past ten years to reduce the spread of HIV.

The "Knowing is Beautiful" campaign created not too long ago targeting gay men, which stressed the importance of testing and asking partners about their HIV status, carried an implicit message about serosorting. While this campaign and others like it do not suggest that individuals should only have relationships with people of the same serostatus, they do assume that if HIV-positive people are aware of a partner’s negative status, they will take steps to ensure that the virus is not transmitted.

Another example can be seen in recent advertisements that show two men with the captions, "He’d tell me if he’s positive" and "He’d tell me if he’s negative."

Public health efforts that implicitly encourage serosorting, or suggest that HIV positive people can reduce the risk of spreading the virus by engaging in strategic sexual positioning, reflect what appears to be a shift in responsibility for HIV prevention.

The prevention messages of the 1980s and 1990s--which encouraged all individuals to "use a condom every time"--proved to be less realistic and effective than initially expected. Such efforts were followed by a focus on "secondary prevention," attempting to prevent new infections by empowering and shifting responsibility to HIV-positive people; this approach, too, may not have been as effective as originally anticipated.

At least serosorting distributes responsibility among all gay men. Serosorting appears to suggest that both partners are responsible in a way that "use a condom every time" and secondary prevention did not.

"As an HIV prevention strategy, I think serosorting is quite effective for positive and negative couples," said Dr. Mitch Katz, San Francisco’s public health director. "For positive men, they don’t have to worry about HIV transmission to somebody who is negative. You do still have to worry about [STDs]. But for many HIV-positive men, serosorting brings with it a tremendous psychological relief."

The Internet has also allowed dating profiles to make the issue of disclosure unambiguous, and there are many Web sites specifically for dating people who are HIV-positive. "But where are the parties or sites just for HIV-men?" Sandor asks. "I don’t organize sex parties anymore but truly hope that others who do will copy the ideas from [blocked URL] site. This is a freedom of choice that we value so dearly, and freedom of choice is one of our liberties. Through serosorting then, a monumental goal is realized: behavioral change is possible, and new HIV transmission is stopped. If you are concerned about super infections or STIs, then use a condom and practice safe sex."

Sandor’s reason is based on a research that many people who learn they have been infected with HIV have altered their behaviors to reduce their risk of transmitting the virus. Therefore, increasing the proportion of people who know their HIV serostatus can help decrease HIV transmission.

Serosorting ’A Brand of Safer Sex’ But there are also other reasons why people may choose partners of the same serostatus beyond the risk of HIV transmission.

HIV-positive persons may find more support in a relationship with another HIV-positive person because they share the challenging aspects of living with HIV. What looks like serosorting may simply be the rise of a community-generated HIV prevention strategy that is happening whether we have any control over it or not.

"Whether we support the concept or are against it, serosorting is a brand of safer sex," says Tim Horn of AIDSmeds.com. "Anything that reduces the odds of sexual transmission is safer sex. So to dismiss it out-of-hand strikes me as nonsensical. Let’s face the facts--serosorting among those thinking they’re HIV-negative is riskier than serosorting among people who know they’re positive."

So even if Robert Brandon Sandor’s methods are unconventional and his rhetoric off-putting to many, the points he is raising may be worth closer scrutiny. Certainly, with AIDS showing no sign of ending in the gay community, it’s time to consider any and all options.

==============================================================

Folks, can we PLEASE forget about talking about ME and start talking about YOU. Gosh...

The Topic: Safe Sex Serosorting.The Discussion Group: Any one who has safe sex (Are you still around or has the whole world gone wild for barebacking?) Those of YOU who are HIV+ and have safe sex, what is YOUR story and input?

i posted on this kind of subject a year ago that there is a very strong anti gay anti male sexuality to many parts of society

i posted on this posts

i hope free thinker gets to look

matty -- i have talked to hundreds of hiv guys and i agree we must never stop hiv meds haart is every day for life, but in reality at least in California and nyc there is tons of people that go on and off meds all the time, i disagree with it, i mean hell

kaiser Dr. TOLD my friend who was 64 to go off meds about 3 months after the big study came out that said the exact opposite, probably because Kaiser HMO compensates its Dr.s for how much MONEY they SAVE the company -- not how well they treat

there was NO REASON whatso ever that this guy should have been taken off meds, he had no side effects

anyway

we will never know true reasons it is shrouded in evil of HMOs insurance companies and doctors minds

why someone was taken off meds

he is doing fine except for a swollen lymph node in neck -- oh it wasnt kaiser it was some other hmo med group associated with a top hospital but

anyway i posted about the anti male anti gay bias hereactually it is anti male love bias if you think about itand pro male sex bias

Just a note... I've been HIV+ since late 1983, first took meds in April 1992 (the day my dad died), and took Med Holidays to this day. To date: NO side effects, I have the same VA med. doctor (I'm a USAF Vet 1979 - 1983) and going just fine. Oh, and BTW: Did ANYONE read the article above and come across this little tidbit..."Whether we support the concept or are against it, serosorting is a brand of safer sex," says Tim Horn of AIDSmeds.com. "Anything that reduces the odds of sexual transmission is safer sex."

Tell Tim I said "Hello". We never met or chatted, but his opinion was encouraging.

Oh, and BTW: Did ANYONE read the article above and come across this little tidbit..."Whether we support the concept or are against it, serosorting is a brand of safer sex," says Tim Horn of AIDSmeds.com. "Anything that reduces the odds of sexual transmission is safer sex."

Yes, I did. I also noted the sentence right after it (which you conspicuously didn't include in your quote)...

Quote

Let’s face the facts--serosorting among those thinking they’re HIV-negative is riskier than serosorting among people who know they’re positive."

And there's the problem (just one among many). Yes, perhaps "anything that reduces the odds of sexual transmission is safer sex", but I am not sold at all that this practice - the way YOU are packaging it - will reduce the odds of sexual transmission.

I think you start a big mess here when you suggested that HIV doesn't mutate. Then, when people took you to task on that INCORRECT statement, you went on about "staying on topic". People needed to point that out because new folks come to site for education and we certainly don't want them believing your INCORRECT belief that HIV doesn't mutate. Quite frankly it is one of the biggest crocks of shit I've seen in these forums

Now, you continue to write how people aren't reading your articles, but what you neglect to point out is that you are neglecting to explain how a neg can be sure they are neg when "serosorting" with another neg. Science is at a point to allow that -- people assume they are neg because they had a neg test at some point (of course, some assume with no test at all) but they can not know for sure, in most cases. I can tell you that I NEVER had sex with a known a positive person -- NEVER, NOT ONCE. Guess what -- I certainly had sex, unknowingly, with a poz person. So, please enlighten us all on how neg-neg serosorting can insure no new infections in this world that you live -- when no one is positive they are negative (pun intended)? The CDC says upwards of 25% of positive people in the US don't even know.

So, I agree that testing is important and should be encouraged and I'll even agree that they shouldn't "censor" reports, if that is what is going on. What I can't agree with is your insane belief that serosorting will stop this pandemic.

Now, I will also point out that I, personally, don't subscribe to serosorting, but fully understand why many pozzies do. I have a negative partner and will have been with him for 18 yrs this Saturday. CONDOMS are how you stop the spread of HIV. We were both neg when we met and thankfully, my stupidity did not result in his seroconverting. (Save yourself the time, if you plan on judging my actions -- I don't care what you think about that and, frankly, you couldn't be anymore judgemental on me than I have been on myself). Our plans are to continue our sex life and keep him negative.

Are you asking for my advice now? My opinion? And after what you said to me, about me...

You had a bad up bringing with you were a child. Is that it?

Safe Sex Serosorting works because if it didn't, 30 years of HIV prevention and funding would be a total waste. Have YOU learned ANYTHING in the 30 years that HIV has been around?

No, I guess you didn't.

Hey listener here -- I'll try and be very simple for your mind. I was NOT asking your advice. I was asking you to explain how Neg-Neg serosorting is going to stop HIV from spreading (when 25% or more of the positive folks don't know they are positive). You are the one who ignores any questions put to you and changes the subject (and the nomenclature). I did NOT ask about Safe Sex Serosorting, if you have safer sex, you need not serosort -- I'm proving it everyday with my partner (well "EVERYDAY" may be a stretch........). So, now you are not only ignoring my question (which comes from your pronouncements, so I'm not pulling it out of my ass), but you are saying all the HIV prevention and funding for the last 30 yrs has been geared toward serosorting?? Are you fucking for real?? Just because you keep repeating things, doesn't make it true sweetheart. You have not given any credible response to anything that has been brought up that goes counter to your thoughts. You topic title seems all so concerned about censoring scientific data, but you don't give a flying fuck about science -- you only care about what you think is fact (but you bring nothing but your say so to back it up) and can't open up that sliver of a mind to even contemplate a different side. Reread my first post here -- I agreed with some parts of your thoughts, but you didn't see that. No sir, you read other's posts while formulating your response -- you don't read to comprehend or learn. I know how that works -- I raised my daughter through her teenage years -- that sort of behavior is quite prevalent in the immature and uninformed (not to mention in those that are way too full of themselves).

And as for how I was brought up -- I dare say that I was taught a few more manners and how to use common sense than you are certainly displaying here. I mean really -- you want to attack my parents?? Really??Crawl back into your own little world sweetie -- clearly the oxygen in this one is affecting your brain.

Well Bocker3, so I guess you want to do this the hard way, well, OK I'll play along. But you're NOT going to like it.

Safe Sex Serosorting (for HIV+ and HIV- people) works because:

1) 30 years of HIV prevention and harm reduction messages.2) Scientific fact states that when you break the cycle of new transmission of ANY virus, disease or plague, you stop the virus, disease or plague in it's tracks. In this case - the end of HIV / AIDS. Go ahead and ask ANY researcher what the term "Breaking the cycle" means.3) The Safe Sex Serosorting data I posted above proves this.

4) In the case of HIV- people...Safe Sex Serosorting works for them because they have been doing it for more than a decade (Historical note: Boy Toys - NY was the nation's FIRST HIV- safe sex venue when I introduced it back in the mid 1990's, just look up the ads I placed in HX and NEXT - NYC gay rags). Just go to websites like ManHunt.net and see for yourself the thousands of HIV- guys having safe sex with only other HIV- guys.5) Safe Sex Srosorting for HIV+ and HIV- people is just basic commonsense.

Which leads me to...

6) Since you found it in your heart to judge me, my work and insult me...let ME return the favor...

To all the HIV "experts", "professionals" and researchers out there reading this:

Get your heads out of your sex partners ass, and start doing your job! STOP your continued negligent, discriminatory behaviour against HIV- people and turn yourselves in for Accounting Fraud. As you can see here, Safe Sex Serosorting works (as my posts of the scientific data above states) and the general public (Bocker3 too) are asking questions! I'm trying my best to answer them, but, as you can see...they choose NOT to take my word for it.

So, there, you have it. MY take on why Safe Sex Serosorting WORKS. But then, you do NOT need to take MY word for it, go ask the "experts and professionals". Oppps, you CAN'T can you? No, you can't. Why? Because the HIV "experts", "professionals" and researchers have delibertaly REFUSED to tell YOU the general public about Safe Sex Serosorting. And when people like me are required to offer you this vital HIV prevention information, YOU CONDEM US! Which leads us to the begining...Our topic: Safe Sex Serosorting.

The reason why HIV is still here today is because of - NEGLIGENCE, CENSORSHIP, DISCRIMINATION and ACCOUNTING FRAUD. The same can be said about why YOU (the general public) are NOT allowed to know about Safe Sex Serosorting. If this were NOT the case, just go to your local HIV agency and ask when the NEXT HIV- social event takes place or go to the HIV researchers and ask to see thier Safe Sex Srosorting research data - 1) For HIV+ people who have safe sex with other HIV+ people, and 2) For HIV- people who have safe sex with other HIV- people.

But, then there's the HARD way to answer your question (This is the part you will NOT like): Go ask HIV- people themselves. Go ahead, don't be afraid they don't bite. (Hard) Go and ask them 1) Why they choose to remain HIV- (trust me, it's NOT just "For their health"), and 2) What do THEY do to stay HIV- mainly since there are NOT support networks avaivable to them to meet other HIV- people.

Golly Gee, how MANY ideas have I given the researchers reading this? ow many of them will take my ideas offered here, and begin (with haste) their HIV+ or HIV- MSM / MSW Safe Sex Serosorting GRANT FUNDING Research requests to the NIH? We'll know in a couple of years won't we...LOL

For those of you who are HIV-, please go to www.[blocked URL] and explore the nation's FIRST website empowering HIV- people to meet other hIV- people. Discuss, share and offer informaton about why being HIV- today is still so important. Share YOUR story on how you remain HIV-. Do YOU Safe Sex Serosort? Do you have ramdon careless sex? How often do YOU get tested for HIV?

The www.[blocked URL] website is a grassroots effort and the spring board for future HIV- Websites (dating, sexual), Support Groups and other social outreach efforts.

Thank you for your support.Who do I see about requesting HIV Prevention, Harm Reduction and Outreach GRANT FUNDING?

Everyone cares. But, only those who are SERIOUS about stopping HIV will Serosort.

Below is a copy of an email reply I sent this morning to a researcher in the US. The details (researcher name, email address and research organization, etc) were omitted to protect the researcher. May people would have given up from the likes of many of you here.

My reply to the research team (RT):

In reply to your comment:

"...Let's not label it. Let me just say where I see risk is when HIV negative people seek out same status partners to have unprotected sex... that's where I see risk." I totally agree and this is the reason for my frustration for so many years. Thank you for taking the time to understand this. Why are SOOOO many HIV "experts" and "professionals" delibertaly refusing to publicaly acknowledge this? It's a shame...

To answer your question:

"So, why should HIV negative men seek out same status partners if they are going to use condoms?" Simple, condoms and condom usage is not 100% effective. Safe Sex Serosorting for HIV- people help: to empower HIV- people to continue regular HIV testing, to empower HIV- people to continue to have safe sex, to empower HIV- people to continue to disclose their HIV- status to future sex partners, to make safe sex SAFER, to offer HOPE to an "At Risk" group. AND to break the cycle of new HIV transmissions. As a researcher, you and your collegues understand the concept behind breaking the cycle of any virus, pleague or disease. Therefore, you understand then that Safe Sex Serosorting thkes 30 years of HIV prevention and harm reduction messages from our government and the so called HIV "experts" and "professionals" and puts it into APPLICATION. Safe Sex Serosorting meets the needs of those who are HIV+ AND who are HIV- who STILL consider safe sex vital in HIV prevention.

Thus: Serosorting and Safe Sex Serosorting is applying what we all were told to do for the past 30 years. It's just that I stumbled upon this over a decade ago, and to date... NO HIV "expert", "professional", researcher, agency or organization took me under their wing to help bounce ideas, theories, research or offer word of encouragement - as you most likely have heard from many here in New York City. LOL

The reality behind Serosorting and Safe Sex Serosorting: It SUPPORTS 30 years of hard work and funding. It proves that mankind is MUCH closer to ending the spread of HIV / AIDS that it thinks. The only difference is this - I'M telling you this, NOT your research. Your research is SUPPORTING my claims. In the years to come (I guess about 2 years), there will be Safe Sex Serosorting Research reports comming in not only from HIV- researchers, but also from HIV+ researchers. It's part of what I call The Enlightment Era of HIV Prevention. I am observing a global "awakening" to the possibilities of Serosorting and the different research opportunities being documented. You and your research is one example.

This is trully an exciting and wonderous time in the history of HIV prevention, harm reduction, awareness, education and empowerment. The only difference is that I'M bringing this to you attention, you're hearing this from ME and NOT from your collegues nationwide.

Well Bocker3, so I guess you want to do this the hard way, well, OK I'll play along. But you're NOT going to like it.

Well, you are right about one thing, I didn't like it, but not for the reason(s) you think. I didn't like it because ONCE AGAIN, you completely side-step the fact that hundreds of thousands of people in the US THINK they are negative and may THINK they are serosorting, but are passing on the virus. Why? because of people like you who prefer to stick your head in the ground and ignore the facts. My positive diagnosis is just one example of the consequences of this line of thinking. You didn't provide facts, you simply restated what you've been saying all along.CONDOMS work -- my partner's continued negative status shows that (he's tested yearly). Your desire to start an HIV Apartheid is worthy of Jesse Helms.You are not a "free thinker" you are a megalomaniac who likes to see yourself in print. I, for one, am now going to stop feeding you any longer and will withdraw from this conversation. I find talking to brick walls to be a waste of my time. Hopefully, you can live well with the knowledge that you are helping to spread this virus even further with your ignorance and stubbornness. I'm not sure how you stand to look in the mirror.

Everyone cares. But, only those who are SERIOUS about stopping HIV will Serosort.

Medical history proves that infectious diseases can be defeated ONLY by preventive vaccines (see smallpox).Syphilis, for instance, has been perfectly, quickly and competely curable for more than half a century. Has it disappeared? Not at all!!!So figure out an incurable disease like HIV infection!

Don't you three find staying in Plato's Cave very cold, dark and damp? You really should step outside in the fresh air and sunshine.

Are all three of you saying that HIV- people are in fact really HIV+? If so, then we must ban ALL HIV testing (It's a wast of money and resources), and if you ARE saying that HIV- People are in fact HIV+, then I guess 30 years of HIV prevention messages failed. Therefore, we must BAN all (currently known and accepted) HIV prevention strategies. THEY FAILED!

So, I guess Serosorting and Safe Sex Serosorting is here to stay.

And since neither of you have supported your claims with scientific proof: I asked you to provide scientific proof that Safe Sex Serosorting does NOT work for HIV+ or HIV- people. You didn't, because you can't. Any Safe Sex Serosorting data available to the general public is from research being CONDUCTED OUTSIDE the US, therefore, I am correct: Researchers in the US are censoring this vital fact.

The matter of the success of Safe Sex Serosorting stands it's ground - It Works.Otherwise, supply the data to prove otherwise. You three are really a waste of good sperm.

For those who are HIV- and living in or visiting the Los Angeles, California metro area, here is information about the nation's ONLY HIV- Support Group: http://[blocked URL].yuku.com/calendar/event/id/10

Thank you for doing YOUR part and staying HIV-.Robert Brandon SandorFOUNDERSerosorting as an HIV Prevention and Harm Reduction Strategywww.[blocked URL]

Plans for a large human trial of a promising government-developedH.I.V. vaccine in the United States were canceled Thursday because atop federal official said scientists realized that they did not knowenough about how H.I.V. vaccines and the immune system interact.

The decision is a major setback in an effort to develop an H.I.V.vaccine that began 24 years ago when government health officialspromised a marketed vaccine by 1987. Health officials have longcontended that such a vaccine would be their best weapon to controlthe AIDS pandemic.

A number of other H.I.V. vaccines are in various stages of testingaround the world. But there had been high hopes for the government'strial because the potential vaccine was among a new class that soughtto stimulate the immune system in a different way.

The official who canceled the government trial, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci,director of the National Institute of Allergy and InfectiousDiseases, said it was becoming clearer that more fundamental researchand animal testing would be needed before an H.I.V. vaccine was evermarketed.

Scientists say that developing a vaccine against H.I.V. is one of themost difficult scientific endeavors in history because of the uncannynature of the virus.

The government vaccine — known as PAVE, for Partnership for AIDSVaccine Evaluation — was similar to a much-heralded vaccine thatfailed last year. That vaccine was developed by Merck, and Dr.Fauci's agency helped pay for the Merck trials.

Dr. Fauci said he reached his decision to cancel the coming trialafter meeting with scientists to try to understand why the Merckvaccine had failed. He said he had concluded that scientists must goa step at a time because they did not yet know fundamental facts likewhich immune reactions are the most important in preventing theinfection.

Dr. Fauci said the new trial was intended to determine whether thevaccine could significantly lower the amount of H.I.V. in the bloodof those who become infected. He said a smaller trial was needed tofigure out whether the vaccine could do that before large trials wereconducted.

"Show me that the vaccine works by lowering the amount of H.I.V. inthe blood," Dr. Fauci said. "Then we will move to a larger trial thatwill document the link with a particular immune response." He addedthat until then, "doing a large trial is not justified."

Dr. Alan Bernstein, executive director of the Global HIV VaccineEnterprise, said that his organization supported Dr. Fauci's decisionand that there was an "urgent need for a diversity of new approachesto H.I.V. vaccine design."

For instance, Dr. Bernstein said, recent laboratory advances, whichallow scientists to look at hundreds of genes simultaneously, "offerimmense promise in helping us understand how to design new H.I.V.vaccine candidates that can achieve long-lasting immune protection."

The trial canceled Thursday was supposed to have started enrolling8,500 volunteers last October to receive the PAVE vaccine, developedby the infectious diseases agency. PAVE is a consortium of federalagencies and key federally financed organizations involved indeveloping and evaluating experimental H.I.V. vaccines. It seeks tocreate an effective H.I.V. vaccine that no pharmaceutical company orinstitution is likely to accomplish on its own.

The PAVE trial had been postponed after a test of the Merck vaccinefailed in its two main objectives: to prevent infection and to lowerthe amount of H.I.V. in the blood among those who became infected.Also, the findings among the 3,000 participants in nine countries inwhich the Merck vaccine was tested suggested it might have increasedthe risk of becoming infected.

After a safety monitoring committee detected the problems with theMerck vaccine in September, the company quickly halted its study.

Scientists have found no obvious explanation for the failure of theMerck vaccine, which had been considered the most promising candidate.

The Merck vaccine was the first of a new class of H.I.V. vaccines toget to an advanced stage in human testing. The vaccine was made froma weakened version of a common cold virus, adenovirus type 5, whichserved as a way to deliver three synthetically produced genes — gag,pol and nef — from the AIDS virus. Three doses of the vaccine wereinjected over six months.

Scientific analyses found that the highest risk of H.I.V. infectionamong recipients of the Merck vaccine was in males who both wereuncircumcised and had pre-existing antibodies to adenovirus type 5.

After the failure of Merck trial, the government reduced the numberof potential volunteers to 2,400; they would have includedcircumcised gay men who had no pre-existing antibodies to adenovirustype 5. The scaled-back study would have cost about $63 million,compared with $140 million for the initial design.

At a news conference in 1984, top federal officials said they wereoptimistic that a marketable H.I.V. vaccine would be available inthree years. Since then, AIDS researchers have been divided about howfast to test experimental vaccines.

Many urge caution out of fear that failures could destroy confidenceamong uninfected people most at risk who would be needed asvolunteers in future trials.

But equally vocal groups call for testing everything as soon as theresearch shows promise because of the urgent need for a vaccine.

In an unrelated development, researchers at Duke University reportednew findings Thursday showing that H.I.V. stuns the immune systemearlier than scientists previously understood.

The window of opportunity in stopping H.I.V. may be a matterconcerning the first few days, not weeks, after the virus enters thebody, a team headed by Dr. Barton Haynes reported in The Journal ofVirology.

The findings were based on a study of 30 individuals newly infectedwith H.I.V., and the National Institutes of Health paid for the study.

Note: Eventhough this article does NOT mention Serosorting in any way, shape or form, commonsense requires us to ask "What now?" "What next?" "WHAT WILL FILL THE VOID, TO REPLACE THE VACCINE?"

In case you are missing the point here, my point is this: Do NOT pass "GO", do NOT collect $200. Just GO BACK to square one! Does this mean we get a "Do over?".

A wast of time, money, resources and a LOT of pissed off gays, what now for the HIV- people who have been promissed "The Holy Gail" of all HOPES?! SEROSORTING WORKS, SEROSORTING IS 100% EFFECTIVE, SEROSORTING IS FREE and (do'nt tell anyone this but...) SEROSORTING IS AVAILABLE NOW ON A GLOBAL SCALE! LOL

Please stop posting the same thing in more than one forum. You also posted your latest post in the Memoriam Forum, which is inappropriate. The Memoriam Forum is a place to commemorate PEOPLE who have passed from this life, not vaccines.

I strongly suggest you READ and ABIDE by our forum posting guidelines found in the Welcome Thread. Posting the same thing repeatedly is considered forum spamming and we do not allow it here.

Ann

PS - Internet etiquette dictates that you provide links to articles you post.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Bandon's been on this jihad for a decade -- he got banned from lots of places like the LGBT center in Manhattan because of his faulty prevention quackery, and in repose labeled everyone Nazi's who send hate mail. He a bit insance.

I asked the sender to provide the weblink, as soon as I get it, I'll be more than happy to post it. BTW, Ann does this same rule apply to those who fail to show weblinks to support THEIR false claims that Safe Sex Serosorting failed? Or are they "The Chosen" few? Fair is only fair Ann.

Philly267;

I belive you are correct (How odd). But, not only was I BANNED from the LGBT Community Center (www.gaycenter.org) ALL the HIV- people were banned as well. In fact, here are TWO articles: (PS, I'm leaving it up to the lawyers to see who violated civil and constitutional rights, this IS one legal issue I - unfortunatly - must leave in the hands of others.)

BTW: The Social I was banned to host for HIV- people, followed THIS format: http://[blocked URL].yuku.com/calendar/event/id/10 Heck, if Los Angeles can do it, why not New York City? But I guess NYC HATES HIV- people...but don't take MY word for it, read the articles...

Youre invited to stop by The LGBT Center this Friday for a social where you can meet other HIV-negative people and maybeif all works outyou can go out to your favorite bar or dance club after the social who knows, you might get lucky!

Thats according to the mass e-mail sent out by promoter Robert Brandon Sandor for his HIV-UB2 social (thats HIV-negative; you be too) planned for 8:00 p.m., Friday, Dec. 7. Theres only one problem: The Center is not allowing him to rent a room. But thats not stopping Sandor.

Robert Woodworth, director of meeting and conference services at The Center, emailed Sandor on Dec. 3: You know from my e-mail on Oct. 31 that you do not have space booked at The Center for the social. Please refrain from giving erroneous information to others. Sandor hasnt. In fact, he claims he'll host the event at The Center with or without the organizations support. Sandors web site, www.[blocked URL], still promotes the gathering.

That ad, among other things, has raised a red flag for Woodworth.Its not a social if youre saying you might get lucky, Woodworth said. We are not holding an event advertised as a dating event on serosorting.

What will transpire Friday night at 208 W. 13th St. is anyones guess. But the online brouhaha underscores the controversy surrounding party promoter Sandor, 48, who gained media attention by hosting sex parties for HIV-positive men in the 90s, and the topic of serosorting.

Serosorting refers to engaging in sex with individuals of your own HIV status. The term has been around since the mid 90s. However, serosorting stepped into the spotlight in early 2006 after the San Francisco Department of Public Health (SFDPH) officials and researchers proposed that serosorting might help explain a simultaneous increase in sexually transmitted infections and decrease in new HIV infections.

Initially, on Sept. 24, Sandor was sent a contract from The Center to sign to reserve the space for his social, but was told he would have to meet with Woodworth to discuss the details. After several unsuccessful meeting attempts, Woodworth sent the Oct. 31 email to Sandor informing him he would not be permitted to use any space at The Center.

The success of serosorting is still very much in question, and The Center declined Sandors request for a space for others to meet in hopes to serosort for sexual encounters.

Because The Center shares widely held concerns about risks associated with serosorting, David Henderson, director of communications for The Center, said, The Center does not believe that an event intended to encourage serosorting behavior is consonant with its mission to foster LGBT wellness.

Sandor remains baffled by the explanation.

Im not hosting a sex party. If I did that in a public place Id be arrested, Sandor said. Im hosting a mixer where HIV-negative people can meet other HIV-negative people. Then why does the invitation mention you might get lucky?

Yes, you might get lucky, but not at The Center! Sandor said. Its like if you go to a bar and meet someone. You may hit it off, leave the bar and hook up.

In its 24 years of operation, The Center has only declined three groups from hosting events, including Sandors HIV-UB2 event this week. The first was North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), an organization that advocates legalizing sexual relations between adult males and under-aged boys. The other was the New Alliance Party, a controversial political group that some viewed as cult.

We do believe perfectly acceptable and controversial subjects should be aired, Woodworth said. Thats why we are here. We are not saying Robert can never rent a room he's already done two events in the past. We are saying no due to the nature of this event.

In fact, Sandor has used The Centers space in the past. He conducted public discussions about his belief that serosorting is a deterrent to HIV transmission; once in September 2006 and again in April of this year. Yet, hes now crying negligence on the part of The Center because, he said, according to their mission statement, they educate the public and our community; and empower our individuals and groups to achieve their fullest potential. Sandor asks, Why does The LGBT Community Center hate HIV-negative people?

Serosorting Parties

A native of Greenwich, Conn., Sandor has been HIV-positive since 1983. He began hosting sex parties 10 years ago because he didnt want to go to support groups and talk about his problems.

I wanted to go out, have fun and meet other people who were positive, Sandor said. At the time there was no place to go. We now have a place to go. Many of those who have attended [his parties] have found good friends and some have become life partners.

Sandor believes his serosorting gatherings, rather than just meeting someone at random, are helping others from having to live the way he does.

Im supposed to be dead, Sandor said. There is nothing glorious or glamorous about taking pills all day. I am proud of the efforts of HIV-negative people for staying that way. One may question, why? if Sandor feels so strongly about serosorting as a method of HIV prevention, he just doesnt find another venue that would support his efforts.

By hosting it at The Center, Im bringing attention to serosorting, Sandor said. I could host this event anywhere.

Interestingly, however, Sandor admits that two bars in ChelseaView Bar and Rawhide along with Gay Mens Health Crisis (www.gmhc.org ) denied his request.

On Dec. 1, World AIDS Day, the Washington Post, ran a story on The Center for Disease Controls National HIV Prevention Conference in Atlanta. Though no numbers have been officially released, its expected they will show over a 50 percent increase in new infections over the last few years. New data collection procedures are also showing that the number of new cases yearly is likely to now be 65,000 to 75,000 per year, instead of the 40,000 to 45,000 they have been predicting based on infection rates in the late 1990s.

In a word, no, serosorting is not dramatically reducing transmission rates, Eric Sawyer, a founding member of the activism group, ACT UP, said. It is likely causing increased transmission because many are testing less often, if at all, then going online saying they are HIV-negative and having unsafe sex.

Unsafe sex is the key word. Although HIV-UB2 events are designed to only include individuals who are negative, Sandor is not nave and does not want the public to be either. Even when HIV-negative people have safe sex with other HIV-negatvie peopleone form of serosortingit should only be safe sex, Sandor said. Its stupid to bareback! I do not advise or promote that behavior.

Sandor has always had condoms available at his sex partieswhether the events are for HIV-positive or HIV-negative men.

Nowadays, Sandor no longer hosts sex parties for HIV-negative people because he said they are already doing it for themselves. He references Internet sites, such as www.Manhunt.net , where people habitually disclose their HIV status, which is another form of self-serosorting. In addition, guys online often ask to meet others who are D&D (drug and disease) free. Of course, its anyones guess as to whether these men misinformed about their status or even blatantly lying.

Statistics from a paper delivered at the recent CDC conference has shown that after the diagnosis of HIV infection, 35 percent of men who have sex continue to practice unsafe sex. Furthermore, according to a press release from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene in 2004, its estimated that one in four people living with HIV/AIDS doesnt know it. That comes out to more than 20,000 people.

You have to trust, Sandor said. You can never be completely sure of your partners status.

Sandor poses the question: If a person is saying they are positive, how can you prove they actually are? What if a negative person is saying they are positive, just so he can become positive?

Sandor wants pose these questions and more at his Dec. 7 social at the LGBT Community Center as he spreads the message of serosorting.

An HIV activist has gone off on a limb that has alienated him from AIDS researchers, activists and organizations by advocating "self-serosorting" by HIV-positive and--and this is the controversial part--HIV-negative gay men. Even if his methods are unconventional and his rhetoric off-putting to many, he’s raising points that have been discussed for years. Just not in the open--until now.

Some 25 years into the AIDS epidemic, gay men are debating serosorting more than ever before. Part of that is due to an "unstoppable protagonist" as he has been called, Robert Brandon Sandor. Bolstered by reports that suggest serosorting brings either psychological relief or danger to gay men, Sandor has embarked on a crusade to keep "pozzies" and "neggies" out of each other’s bedrooms.

Sandor doesn’t exactly shy away from controversy. He calls HIV-negative men the future and invites them (and only them) to "HIV-UB2" parties via his new site, . HIV-positive men have been vocal in their complaints of "sero-apartheid." Sandor points to a study of gay men in San Francisco that reports serosorting resulted in a reduction of HIV infection among gay men there.

According to reports like that one, serosorting may be effective for positive and negative couples. For positive men, they don’t have to worry about HIV transmission to somebody who is negative, although they still have to worry about other STDs. Serosorting brings psychological relief, for HIV negative men. But, experts say, serosorting cannot obviate the issue of trust as the foundation--and fundamental problem--of any effective serosorting. Why? Because HIV-negative gay men may assume their partners are also negative and STD-free.

"This is the reason why I have decided to start a series of sex parties exclusively for HIV-negative men so that HIV infection among them can be reduced, if not stopped totally, via a safer version of serosorting," Sandor says.

But serosorting does not necessarily protect anyone from HIV or other STDs. "As we all know, it is a very big mistake to trust anyone when it comes to their HIV status as most of them don’t even know their own status," notes one HIV-negative man who is in a long term relationship with an HIV-positive partner in New York City. "Under such circumstances, serosorting becomes an indirect way of spreading the HIV virus among HIV-negative gay men because serosorting seems to say that it is ok to bareback based on a simple foundation: trust,"

While Sandor (who is himself self-declared as HIV-positive) agrees that condoms are still the way to go to reduce HIV infection regardless of who has sex with whom, he believes "serosorting is a trend we all should have considered long time ago to save HIV-negative men who are really our future if we want to reduce or stop HIV infection."

The issue came to a head recently when Sandor applied to New York’s LGBT Center to organize series of activities exclusively for HIV-negative men there. Robert A. Woodworth wrote back via an email rejecting the application without explanation.

Center spokesperson David Henderson told EDGE that fostering health and wellness for LGBT people, including prevention of HIV transmission, has been a core component of the Center’s mission since its founding in 1983. In the realm of HIV/AIDS prevention, serosorting is a controversial subject. As a community concern it warrants discussion. Sandor conducted seminars at the Center in September 2006 and April 2007 on the subject. The Center rejected the application for a social event, Henderson said, "because the Center shares widely held concerns about risks associated with serosorting."

Sandor branded email "hate mail" and made it public. He’s never shied away from controversy.

Poz-on-Poz: How Risky?For a decade, he’s been actively expressing opposition or hostility toward established activists, including Brad Becker of the LGBT National Help Center, Ken Fornataro of The Network, and Dan O’Connell of the NYSDOH-AIDS Institute. None of these leaders have been willing to debate this controversial issue openly in public, Sandor says.

Ten years ago Brandon created a series of social and sexual parties for pozzies in various cities). He says many positive men thanked him for a sex party without any reservations. HIV advocacy groups, however, weren’t so pleased. They questioned whether the participants were all telling the truth about their HIV status. Sandor did ask participants to use condoms.

The success of these parties led him into the uncharted waters of HIV-negative parties. Advocacy groups didn’t think the message was clear enough and that Sandor had failed to note that HIV can be transmitted in other ways than sexually, and that there was the possibility of other nasty (if not fatal) STDs.

Ken Fornataro, executive director of The Network, says he supports people having safe sex with whomever they want (except for minors), but accuses Sandor of advocating safe or unsafe sex between two HIV seronegative gay men, tacitly at least "That’s very unlikely to stop the spread of HIV or anything else, including selfish disrespect for others," Fornataro says.

Sandor maintains that "the general public is not aware of the resources available out there and some gay men don’t even know what serosorting means," despite its possible benefits. Indeed, some experts have praised serosorting as a way to prevent the spread of HIV between partners who choose not to use condoms. But many others won’t endorse any unprotected sex.

The San Francisco study mentioned above may buttress Sandor’s claims. "Serosorting" became a buzzword early in 2006, when the San Francisco Department of Public Health officials and researchers proposed that serosorting might help explain a simultaneous increase in sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and decrease in new HIV infections.

Researchers have suggested that while the increase in STIs indicated either static or increasing rates of unprotected sex, rates of HIV infection were holding steady. So maybe negative guys were doing it with negative guys--giving each other clap maybe, but not HIV.

Nor do all gay men disagree with Brandon. Some HIV-negative men see his intentions as benign. But Sandor doesn’t help his cause by branding anyone who disagrees with him as a "hate group" and calling their motives into question.

"My partner was infected because he trusted his ex-lover, says an HIV-negative man living with a positive man. "Safe sex is still the only way to go especially for us. Serosorting is based on trust and we cannot trust anyone--not even the ones we know personally because most of the people we know do not know their own HIV status and most of them don’t go for a regular check up, because they ’always play it safe."

But experts and activists may not be tackling whether negative people think they are being safe because they think they know the serostatus of their partners and are not using protection. "You probably have also heard of some businesses that offer cards attesting to a person’s negative status, but we think that these are being used by people to convince others that it’s safe to have unprotected sex with them," warns Dan O’Connell, a director of the Division of HIV Prevention at NYSDOH-AIDS Institute.

The person may be unaware of his status even after being checked.

Unaware of Serostatus, Despite TestingThe body naturally produces the standard HIV antibody screening test checks for antibodies against HIV. However, the immune system typically takes one to three months--and in rare cases as long as six months--to develop detectable quantities of antibodies (the hallmark of seroconversion).

As people who have had an HIV test may recall hearing from a doctor or counselor, the antibody test will not detect HIV infection during this "window period." A supposedly HIV negative person who has, in fact, been recently infected with HIV may receive a negative test result but still be capable of transmitting the virus. Indeed, HIV viral load skyrockets during acute infection, as the body has yet to produce enough antibodies to keep the virus (relatively) in check, and researchers believe that newly infected individuals are more infectious during this period than they will be during long-term, chronic infection.

This presents a significant problem for HIV negative people who rely on serosorting in order to have unprotected sex.

A significant proportion of people practicing serosorting who think they are HIV negative or do not truly know their status may, in fact, be HIV positive. In the vast majority of studies in which investigators have asked participants for self-reported HIV status and then conducted follow-up blood screening, those who were unsure of their HIV status overwhelmingly tended to be positive.

Dr. Richard J. Wolitski, acting deputy director for Behavioral and Social Sciences, Division of the National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, believes that serosorting is likely to further reduce the risk of HIV transmission. But only if it is practiced in conjunction with monogamy and condom use, "Serosorting as a substitute for other strategies may be problematic, particularly because studies have suggested that many HIV-infected men who have sex with men are mostly unaware of their infection," Wolitski says.

One recent study also found nearly half of HIV-infected men having sex with men did not know that they were infected. Additionally, a study of more than 4,000 of these men found that 22 percent of new HIV infections were attributed to unprotected receptive anal sex with a partner who was believed to be HIV-negative.

"Consider the facts that roughly 25 percent of people with HIV don’t even know they’re infected," says Tim Horn, senior editor of AIDSmeds.com. "Or that people with acute HIV infection--with very high levels of HIV in their body--are easily missed using antibody testing; or that many don’t get tested for HIV as regularly as they should.

"Essentially, you end up dealing with a sizeable number of men who think they’re negative but really aren’t, and end up putting their partners at risk under the premise of serosorting," Horn says. "It’s definitely a noteworthy extension of safer sex principles, but it hardly comes with guarantees."

Researchers have also begun to observe how HIV positive individuals are choosing specific roles and behaviors with their sexual partners based on serostatus, a practice known as "strategic positioning." For example, some studies report that HIV-positive gay and bisexual men are more likely to take a receptive role with HIV-negative partners during anal sex, as the virus is less likely to be transmitted from the receptive to the insertive partner.

Experts also say serosorting can be an active or passive strategy. For example, an HIV-positive person who seeks a sex partner through online chat rooms or bulletin boards may actively select seropositive partners and/or disclose serostatus in a personal profile, allowing potential partners to serosort and thereby reducing the odds of connecting with individuals who may react unfavorably upon learning that a potential partner has HIV.

Data gathered over the past few years indicate that HIV positive individuals tend to engage in risk-reduction strategies when they have sex with a partner they believed to be HIV negative.

According to Perry Halkitis, director of the Center for Health, Identity, Behavior and Prevention Studies at New York University, "research consistently documents that HIV positive (gay and bisexual) men deliberately partake in less risky transmission behaviors when their partners are known to be HIV negative. In my view, it is indicative of the sense of responsibility many HIV positive men have toward their partners and the gay community at large," he says.

Condoms Still UnpopularWhat are the personal benefits of serosorting?

For many, condoms have significant shortcomings: they can be awkward and cumbersome to use, may dull the physical sensations of sex, often carry cultural stigma, and may create an emotional barrier between partners. Furthermore, 26 years into the HIV/AIDS epidemic, there is a sense of burn-out and fatigue with "use a condom every time" safer-sex messages.

HIV positive men (or anyone) who prefer to have sex without condoms may find that serosorting decreases their anxiety about transmitting HIV, allowing them to enjoy sex more fully, both physically and emotionally. Even for individuals who practice safer sex, serosorting can reduce anxiety about possible condom failure.

"From what I heard and know, serosorting can also be a way for HIV positive people to more readily find partners for a long-term relationship, as some seropositive individuals prefer to date others who understand the experience of living with HIV," says Marc Delany, a sexually active HIV-positive man in New York City who is familiar with the current showdown between Brandon and the HIV advocacy groups.

Chris Heredia, a reporter at San Francisco Chronicle, also thinks that HIV-positive individuals find that serosorting helps to alleviate the discomfort and potential rejection sometimes associated with disclosure, and seeking sexual partners through venues (such as websites) specifically designed for finding HIV positive peers dramatically decreases the likelihood of meeting partners who turn out to be HIV negative.

"However, relying on passive serosorting--providing information that allows potential partners to serosort--puts positive individuals at greater risk for the possible repercussions associated with being open about one’s HIV status, such as loss of medical confidentiality and possible discrimination," Heredia explains.

While it is true that some people find that serosorting reinforces a sense of community and connectedness by helping them to meet others who intimately understand life with HIV, others point out that fostering community through serosorting may widen rifts between positive and negative people. Choosing to develop relationships or have sex exclusively with same-status people may dramatically limit an individual’s pool of prospective partners and social contacts.

As serosorting becomes more commonplace, conversations in which a person discloses his or her HIV status before sex may become the norm. Perhaps individuals unsure of their status will be more likely to seek out HIV testing as peers and partners emphasize the need to know HIV status for certain.

Safe-Sex Campaigns’ Implicit Serosorting MessageSerosorting has implicitly been a major component of prevention strategies over the past ten years to reduce the spread of HIV.

The "Knowing is Beautiful" campaign created not too long ago targeting gay men, which stressed the importance of testing and asking partners about their HIV status, carried an implicit message about serosorting. While this campaign and others like it do not suggest that individuals should only have relationships with people of the same serostatus, they do assume that if HIV-positive people are aware of a partner’s negative status, they will take steps to ensure that the virus is not transmitted.

Another example can be seen in recent advertisements that show two men with the captions, "He’d tell me if he’s positive" and "He’d tell me if he’s negative."

Public health efforts that implicitly encourage serosorting, or suggest that HIV positive people can reduce the risk of spreading the virus by engaging in strategic sexual positioning, reflect what appears to be a shift in responsibility for HIV prevention.

The prevention messages of the 1980s and 1990s--which encouraged all individuals to "use a condom every time"--proved to be less realistic and effective than initially expected. Such efforts were followed by a focus on "secondary prevention," attempting to prevent new infections by empowering and shifting responsibility to HIV-positive people; this approach, too, may not have been as effective as originally anticipated.

At least serosorting distributes responsibility among all gay men. Serosorting appears to suggest that both partners are responsible in a way that "use a condom every time" and secondary prevention did not.

"As an HIV prevention strategy, I think serosorting is quite effective for positive and negative couples," said Dr. Mitch Katz, San Francisco’s public health director. "For positive men, they don’t have to worry about HIV transmission to somebody who is negative. You do still have to worry about [STDs]. But for many HIV-positive men, serosorting brings with it a tremendous psychological relief."

The Internet has also allowed dating profiles to make the issue of disclosure unambiguous, and there are many Web sites specifically for dating people who are HIV-positive. "But where are the parties or sites just for HIV-men?" Sandor asks. "I don’t organize sex parties anymore but truly hope that others who do will copy the ideas from [blocked URL] site. This is a freedom of choice that we value so dearly, and freedom of choice is one of our liberties. Through serosorting then, a monumental goal is realized: behavioral change is possible, and new HIV transmission is stopped. If you are concerned about super infections or STIs, then use a condom and practice safe sex."

Sandor’s reason is based on a research that many people who learn they have been infected with HIV have altered their behaviors to reduce their risk of transmitting the virus. Therefore, increasing the proportion of people who know their HIV serostatus can help decrease HIV transmission.

Serosorting ’A Brand of Safer Sex’ But there are also other reasons why people may choose partners of the same serostatus beyond the risk of HIV transmission.

HIV-positive persons may find more support in a relationship with another HIV-positive person because they share the challenging aspects of living with HIV. What looks like serosorting may simply be the rise of a community-generated HIV prevention strategy that is happening whether we have any control over it or not.

"Whether we support the concept or are against it, serosorting is a brand of safer sex," says Tim Horn of AIDSmeds.com. "Anything that reduces the odds of sexual transmission is safer sex. So to dismiss it out-of-hand strikes me as nonsensical. Let’s face the facts--serosorting among those thinking they’re HIV-negative is riskier than serosorting among people who know they’re positive."

So even if Robert Brandon Sandor’s methods are unconventional and his rhetoric off-putting to many, the points he is raising may be worth closer scrutiny. Certainly, with AIDS showing no sign of ending in the gay community, it’s time to consider any and all options.

So, YES I was banned and so were those who are HIV- who wanted to attend. I belive the lawyers are calling this a "Rights Violation" and possible negligence with some accounting fraud mixed in. Do HIV- people contribute funding to the LGBT Community center for HIV prevention, education, awareness, support and empowerment? YES. So WHY were HIV- people BANNED to assemble?

www.[blocked URL] a grassroots place where HIV- people can be themselves, chat, post messages, meet other HIV- people and find HOPE for the future. Because with the Vaccine done and NYC banning HIV- people...WHERE can HIV- people go without the hate?

You're British, right? Or you live in the UK? Anyway, just to confirm this - could you contact Channel ONE (http://www.northonetv.com) regarding this matter, it was back in 2006. I belive the tv station is in London.

Thanks for any help you can provide.==================================================================================

I work in development for North One Television, which is part of ALL3MEDIA, one of the leading TV companies in the UK. North One Television is a London based production company and we have an excellent track record of making superb quality programmes, from documentaries about some of the world’s biggest stars, including Queen and Kylie Minogue to factual documentaries called the Dead Body Squad for Channel 4 and It’s Not Easy being a Wolfboy for Five. We are also in production on a series that helps a struggling community form a choir that acts as a beacon of hope and change, a two-part documentary about a blind school as well as a documentary about violent women.

We are currently hoping to develop a documentary for the UK broadcaster Channel 4 about “Poz Parties” and I was hoping to speak to Robert Brandon Sandor about this. It would be great to get an idea about the opportunities for HIV-positive men to socialise and to find out more about the concept of serosorting.

It would be great if you could get in touch with me. My contact number is Tel: 011 44 20 7502 5643. Or you can email me a number I can get hold of you.

Want to know more about us? At North One Television (formerly Chrysalis Television - bought out last year by a triumvirate comprising David Liddiment, Jules Burns and Steve Morrison) we are probably best known for our award winning sports coverage (Formula One, World Rally etc) but also for our factual and factual entertainment programmes such as the Top Ten series, The Importance of Being Morrissey, The Real Jackie Chan, The Great British UFO Hoax, The Ultimate Film, Britain’s Favourite Number 1, The Beckhams NSPCC World Cup Party and John Lydon's Megabugs for Discovery - please have a look at our website:

Serosorting in a perfect world where everyone used condoms just might work. But babe, I've got news for you. We don't live in a perfect world and most people use serosorting as a way of not having to use condoms. Get that through your head, ok?

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

With all due respect, please take a moment and think about your response - think about the meaning of your response.

True, we do NOT live in a perfect world, HOW can we? Since the dawn of time mankind has been a odds with itself, fighting and arguing every step of the way. However, once in a while, a thought or a an "awareness" surfaces and manifests itself into the folly. The idea becomes a reality and once when this happens, the idea expands and becomes part of the day to day existence of life. Mankind becomes dependent upon the reality of the thought. Whenever mankind takes a step forward in the discovery of something new, he never takes a step back.

Two examples:

*Why did Socrates drink the hemock, and how does it affect our lives today?*The reason why the International Space Station is a reality today, is because of two bicycle repair men from Dayton, Ohio found a way to take the time to understand the theory of flight.

Therefore Ann, To say with conviction and such confidence "Contact anyone on YOUR behalf about your dangerous ideas about serosorting? You're joking, right?

Serosorting in a perfect world where everyone used condoms just might work. But babe, I've got news for you. We don't live in a perfect world and most people use serosorting as a way of not having to use condoms. Get that through your head, ok? "

Is just sad and rather disapointing. Ann, I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but there are more people using condoms then there are who don't. And the reality of this can be seen every day. How? With EVERYTHING YOU KNOW about HIV / AIDS (Supperinfections, Dual Infections, Reinfections, Mutations, Mulitple Strains, Party drug use and the like) Guess what Ann - Mankind (The general public) is STILL here! After 30 years of HIV /AIDS... We did NOT die!

Ann and those reading this, please take note.

Do I care what anyone thinks of me? No.Do I care what threats you make toward me? No.Do I care if you belive me? No.

I DO CARE about doing MY PART to stop the spread of HIV. Why? Because 30 years ago, I was told that when I have sex with someone who is NOT infected, I can infect them. Back then (1983) I would be banished and loose everyone and everything dear to me. Today, if I infected someone, I would be arrested.

The idea of Serosorting and (more importantly) Safe Sex Serosorting as a credible strategy in HIV prevention and harm reduction, is a very real idea that is global. The awareness of this new form of sexual relation between two (or more) people is a reality that will not go away. Serosorting and Safe Sex Serosorting is part of the ongoing evolutional theory of safe sex and can be placed into Hobbes' Theory of a Social Contract and Darwin's Theory of Evolution: "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, or the most intelligent; it is the one that is most adaptable to change."

I mentioned both theories in my published article back in 2004 - more than FOUR years ago:

In the mid 1990s I hosted my first Poz Partyan exclusive opportunity for HIV-positive men to meet, network, socialize, and have sex with other HIV-positive men in a fun, safe, and comfortable environment. The concept proved to be the forebear of todays HIV prevention strategy called serosorting, through which HIV-positive people have sex only with others already infected with the virus.

Charles Darwin wrote, It is not the strongest of the species that survives or the most intelligent; it is the one that is most adaptable to change. And look at how we have changed! American society as a whole in the 21st century is beginning to accept serosorting as another valid form of HIV prevention, and wethe HIV communityare helping to lead the way in stopping the spread of the virus.

But in a broader sense, serosorting is about much more than just stopping HIV transmissions. Whenever two HIV-positive peoplegay or straight, men or womenhook up for sex, it is about respect: respect for ones self-esteem, respect for ones partners, and respect for our society. It also helps HIV-positive people avoid the stigma of our serostatus, to meet friends and partners like ourselves, to gain a sense of belonging, and to remind ourselves of what we arealive and productive members of our society.

As a rule, since my first party, I have always provided condoms for people who want them, because some HIV-positive people are worried about becoming superinfected or catching a sexually transmitted disease other than HIV. But regardless of whether condoms are used, HIV transmissions to uninfected people do not occur at my partiesor any other time HIV-positive people engage in serosorting. Those who are HIV-negative remain protected against the virus.

And that is a goal we all should work toward.

Sandor is the organizer of Brandons Poz Parties, gatherings held regularly for HIV-positive men in New York City; Washington, D.C.; Palm Springs, Calif.; and Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Is just sad and rather disapointing. Ann, I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but there are more people using condoms then there are who don't. And the reality of this can be seen every day. How? With EVERYTHING YOU KNOW about HIV / AIDS (Supperinfections, Dual Infections, Reinfections, Mutations, Mulitple Strains, Party drug use and the like) Guess what Ann - Mankind (The general public) is STILL here! After 30 years of HIV /AIDS... We did NOT die!

People are still living today because they ignore BS from people like yourself.